• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,679
29,284
Pacific Northwest
✟818,552.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
But "justice" and "righteousness" are not 100% equivocal in NT usage (post #94).

"Just" and "righteous" would be equivocal.

You applied your own interpretive spin.

Let's take the word δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosune), looking at a broad range of lexicons "justice" is given as a definition of the word:


There's a reason we use the word "justification" and also then speak of "imputed righteousness"; because it is equally as valid to speak of "imputed justice"; to speak of how one is made right or just, before God; or speaking more properly in the context of Reformation theology--how one is declared right or just before God. Justification is God declaring a person righteous/just because of the imputed or reckoned justice/righteousness of Jesus; that I am not the one who has righteousness or justice of my own by which I am righteous and just before God--but Jesus is. And as an act of pure grace, appropriated to me through faith, God reckons--imputes--Christ's justice and righteousness to me.

To be righteous is to be just; to have righteousness is to have justice, to do righteousness is to do justice; and these are all synonymous with being right, to do what is right--that which is good and right. And biblically speaking, it is specifically in the context of God's revealed Law: God declares through the Law what is good and right--what is just or righteous; and thus the moral imperative is to do that which is good and right (just or righteous). God declares murder to be wrong, "Do not murder"; therefore the right thing to do is to not murder; if I murder I transgress the Divine Law that says "Do not murder".

There is this righteousness or justice; that is to be in a state of "rightness" before God which exists solely through the merciful declaration that I am forgiven and fully pardoned, and that I have imputed to me the justice of Christ by which I am just before God as a pure act of mercy. But there is also that justice, that righteousness, which I am commanded to exhibit to my neighbor, to exhibit here in the world toward others, in my community, in my family, to all God's creatures, to the whole of creation itself. And that is righteousness Coram Mundus, righteousness before the world, also called righteousness Coram Hominibus, righteousness before human beings.

The whole of justice toward others is wrapped up in this: That I am to act justly, rightly, in regard to and toward others. That I am called, as the Prophet Micah says, to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God.

It is a just act that I feed the hungry, to deprive my neighbor of food is unjust. And it is never a hyper-individualistic personal justice; because I am not a moral island and the Bible doesn't pretend that people are moral islands--we have moral obligations by the simple fact that we exist in communities, in societies--that we exist as neighbors in neighborhoods: in families, friend-groups, villages, towns, cities, and states. I exist in relation with all other people with whom I share the earth, from the miniscule to the majuscule; from those with whom I share the same house, the same village, the same rivers, the same wells, the same trees, the same mountains all the way to the same planet. I exist within a complex interconnected web of humanity--and I have an obligation, from God, to be a good neighbor.

Social justice is a moral obligation that rests upon the individual Christian AND the whole Christian Church in her total catholic capacity as the worldwide community of disciples of Jesus; to exist in relation to the rest of the world bearing the commandments of God. And that means I cannot say that feeding the hungry is someone else's responsibility and wash my hands of it, neither can I say that it is only the responsibility of individuals and not the responsibility of communities at large--it is both. If I see a hungry man, I am to give him bread; and I am to also support social conditions which enable the hungry to have bread. It's not either-or; it's both-and. That is Divine Justice, as revealed in Scripture. And to which I am called to exhibit. Not because I will attain justice before God through my works; but because if I claim that I am a disciple of Jesus then that means exhibiting my faith through my works. There is no scenario where I can claim I am a Christian and then live lawlessly and in unrepentant sin without remorse: And to deny my neighbor of material good when I have the opportunity to do so, is transgression of the Divine Law.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,679
29,284
Pacific Northwest
✟818,552.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
You're talking about giving of your own free will.

God COMMANDED wealth redistribution. Sure, one does have a choice to obey or disobey God. But we call disobedience to God by the word "sin".

It was a sin to withhold money and food from the poor, hungry, and immigrant. And God declared that doing so was to steal from Him.

So, again, are you sure you don't want to change your argument?

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Freth

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 11, 2020
1,647
1,992
Midwest, USA
✟580,833.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
God COMMANDED wealth redistribution. Sure, one does have a choice to obey or disobey God. But we call disobedience to God by the word "sin".

It was a sin to withhold money and food from the poor, hungry, and immigrant. And God declared that doing so was to steal from Him.

So, again, are you sure you don't want to change your argument?

-CryptoLutheran

I grew up poor. Despite being poor myself I went around gathering food to make food boxes for others. When I worked and had extra money I gave freely to the poor. Now that I'm retired I'm poor again, living on a small pension, and receive food from the local food bank to supplement what little food I can afford. I know what poor is, I've lived it a good portion of my life.

I'm not against giving to the poor. I'm for it. I also agree that we should obey God. God commanded man not to steal. It is a valid point.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
42,239
22,810
US
✟1,741,697.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I appreciate your response here, and agree with most of what you've shared here in principle. However, the reality is that you are still dealing with the topic from more of a spiritual/theological level, whereas I guess what I'm getting at here is something different. That is, not justice in the sense of rewards and punishments meted out when Jesus returns to judge the earth; but justice with regard to issues like poverty, inequality, racism and sexism here in this life, right here, right now. What, in your position, should the Christian position be toward such issues in *this* life?

It is easily argued that social justice is possible only within the Body of Christ among its members.

And not even guaranteed there, but only possible there.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
42,239
22,810
US
✟1,741,697.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
God COMMANDED wealth redistribution. Sure, one does have a choice to obey or disobey God. But we call disobedience to God by the word "sin".

It was a sin to withhold money and food from the poor, hungry, and immigrant. And God declared that doing so was to steal from Him.

So, again, are you sure you don't want to change your argument?

-CryptoLutheran
Within the body of believers.
 
Upvote 0

Hentenza

I will fear no evil for You are with me
Site Supporter
Mar 27, 2007
35,796
4,480
On the bus to Heaven
✟102,888.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
God COMMANDED wealth redistribution.
It all depends if you are talking about the political definition of wealth redistribution or the individual biblical requirement to give to the poor. If it is the second then yes the scriptures commands the Christian to love one another and give to the poor. Some of the largest charities are indeed Christian. What the Bible does not teach is that Christians are commanded to give to the government via taxation or other forms to give to those in need, ie socialism. In fact, the lower my taxes the more I give to charity. As a Christian I will give to the cause that stirs my heart. Secondly, there is no scripture that commands the Christian to give a particular amount of their income. We give as the spirit guide us.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
42,239
22,810
US
✟1,741,697.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Do what I can do.

I mean in personal relating with people in need.

People need contact with someone who loves them and shares with them personally.

And you need to see if and how a needy person is going to be "sustainable". I can not babysit someone for the rest of the person's life.

About politically and with programs changing things . . . I have enough to do, already, with personal helping.

But if others can get into politics and careers and programs and help people, this is fine with me. I will support them however I can.

But I see how family culture can help people and keep them sustainable, while political things and programs can go down the tubes, at some point.

And if you just feed people, you might save children's lives, but who might use them after you "save" them? You need family culture. Terrorists can harvest rescued children to be child soldiers. Gangs and Hamas might get some control of what you provide for needy people. Extortion racketeers can sign up homeless people for social security and collect it while keeping the "helped" people on drugs and/or held up in shelters by not giving them services that return them to society.

Jesus is the only way who really works > "without Me you can do nothing" (in John 15:5). However, I would say there is Christian ministry which is organized and which provides material and social help. May be the more successful ones make sure they spend time with ones they reach, to help them to become saved and grow in Jesus and discover how to make things work out in their lives in this evil world.

But there are ones "helped" who exploit the services, for example a guy out of jail then picking up a church woman with money and shacking. Then you have helped to produce a victim, by enabling someone not for real who then has church culture resources and credibility to use people.

So . . . you do not "want" to get some mass-produced operation going. But also we do not want to be controlling and watching people in every detail >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

There has to be an understanding of what is the primary mission and what is a "side quest."
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,679
29,284
Pacific Northwest
✟818,552.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
It all depends if you are talking about the political definition of wealth redistribution or the individual biblical requirement to give to the poor. If it is the second then yes the scriptures commands the Christian to love one another and give to the poor. Some of the largest charities are indeed Christian. What the Bible does not teach is that Christians are commanded to give to the government via taxation or other forms to give to those in need, ie socialism. In fact, the lower my taxes the more I give to charity. As a Christian I will give to the cause that stirs my heart. Secondly, there is no scripture that commands the Christian to give a particular amount of their income. We give as the spirit guide us.

What I've been referring to is the commandment to ancient Israel. Which absolutely did involve setting aside resources, which were then redistributed by the government.

The person I've been responding to has been arguing that the transferal of wealth is theft; when Scripture specifically commands the transferal of wealth by the means of the state, the ancient state of Israel which was God's Covenant nation.

I'm not arguing that this Scripture applies to anything/anyone today--what I'm arguing is that if wealth distribution is inherently theft, then God is by definition a thief and violating His own commandment that says "Do not steal".

The point I'm making is that "wealth redistribution is theft" is an invalid argument, at least from a Christian, biblical perspective.

But it is the kind of argument that could be made if one is less interested in historic Christian and biblical morality and ethics and instead wants to use religion to justify modern economic, political, and social injustice. If one is perfectly okay with abusing religion and perverting to conform to their own political interests, then fine; but if one is interested in being faithful to the history, tradition, and holding to the divine revelation which has been received from the beginning--then it's a very unacceptable thing to do.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0

Hentenza

I will fear no evil for You are with me
Site Supporter
Mar 27, 2007
35,796
4,480
On the bus to Heaven
✟102,888.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What I've been referring to is the commandment to ancient Israel. Which absolutely did involve setting aside resources, which were then redistributed by the government.

The person I've been responding to has been arguing that the transferal of wealth is theft; when Scripture specifically commands the transferal of wealth by the means of the state, the ancient state of Israel which was God's Covenant nation.

I'm not arguing that this Scripture applies to anything/anyone today--what I'm arguing is that if wealth distribution is inherently theft, then God is by definition a thief and violating His own commandment that says "Do not steal".

The point I'm making is that "wealth redistribution is theft" is an invalid argument, at least from a Christian, biblical perspective.

But it is the kind of argument that could be made if one is less interested in historic Christian and biblical morality and ethics and instead wants to use religion to justify modern economic, political, and social injustice. If one is perfectly okay with abusing religion and perverting to conform to their own political interests, then fine; but if one is interested in being faithful to the history, tradition, and holding to the divine revelation which has been received from the beginning--then it's a very unacceptable thing to do.

-CryptoLutheran
The commandments to Israel had nothing to do with redistribution of wealth. There were several policies regarding taking care of the poor.

The gleaning laws regarded leaving a portion of the crop unpicked so the poor could collect the fruit. This involved the poor with actually picking the remainder of the crop and it was not a hand out by the government.

The Sabbatical year related to leaving a portion of the land foal so that whatever grew on it did not belong to anyone so anyone could eat from it. It also called for all debts to be cancelled although some believe that the cancellation was temporary and not permanent. I’m from the camp that it was permanent. But again this is individual not by the government unless the debt was own to the government.

The jubilee year. Land that had been sold was to be returned to the original owner. Since land truly belong to God the land was leased rather than owned. This was not a redistribution of wealth to a different family, but a return of a family's original inheritance. The object here was to prevent families from falling into permanent poverty by losing their primary source of income.

No interest loan. This command related to not charging interest to those of limited means. The purpose was to help them remain financially stable and live within the community.

I don’t see anything here about redustribution of wealth by the government. Maybe you can expand your thought including scriptural references.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,679
29,284
Pacific Northwest
✟818,552.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
The jubilee year. Land that had been sold was to be returned to the original owner. Since land truly belong to God the land was leased rather than owned. This was not a redistribution of wealth to a different family, but a return of a family's original inheritance. The object here was to prevent families from falling into permanent poverty by losing their primary source of income.

That is, literally, a redistribution of wealth. The land was redistributed to the original owners of the land. That is wealth redistribution.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,679
29,284
Pacific Northwest
✟818,552.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I grew up poor. Despite being poor myself I went around gathering food to make food boxes for others. When I worked and had extra money I gave freely to the poor. Now that I'm retired I'm poor again, living on a small pension, and receive food from the local food bank to supplement what little food I can afford. I know what poor is, I've lived it a good portion of my life.

I'm not against giving to the poor. I'm for it. I also agree that we should obey God. God commanded man not to steal. It is a valid point.

My sympathies for your struggles.

But that doesn't address anything I said.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Like
Reactions: Larniavc
Upvote 0

Hentenza

I will fear no evil for You are with me
Site Supporter
Mar 27, 2007
35,796
4,480
On the bus to Heaven
✟102,888.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That is, literally, a redistribution of wealth. The land was redistributed to the original owners of the land. That is wealth redistribution.

-CryptoLutheran
It returns to the original owners not to the community or the poor. Maybe the previous owners belong to a rich family. This is not redistribution of wealth.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,679
29,284
Pacific Northwest
✟818,552.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
It returns to the original owners not to the community or the poor. This is not redistribution of wealth.

It is being TAKEN from the current owners and REDISTRIBUTED to the original owners.

That IS redistribution of wealth. It is LITERALLY being redistributed from one person to another.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Larniavc
Upvote 0

Hentenza

I will fear no evil for You are with me
Site Supporter
Mar 27, 2007
35,796
4,480
On the bus to Heaven
✟102,888.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It is being TAKEN from the current owners and REDISTRIBUTED to the original owners.

That IS redistribution of wealth. It is LITERALLY being redistributed from one person to another.

-CryptoLutheran
It was a restoration not a redistribution. You don’t even know if the original owners are wealthy or not. The return of the land COULD help a family in dire straights or it might not and this happened once every 50 years. This is NOT redistribution of wealth. Land merely just got passed around owners.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,679
29,284
Pacific Northwest
✟818,552.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
It was a restoration not a redistribution.

It's still redistribution.

You don’t even know if the original owners are wealthy or not.

Which is irrelevant.

The return of the land COULD help a family in dire straights or it might not and this happened once every 50 years.

Right, the land was returned--redistributed--to the original owners. The reason why land would have fallen out of the family in the first place was very likely because the family fell on hard times and had to sell their land. In the same way that people sold themselves into slavery to pay off debts. The Jubilee was restoring all the pieces of the chess board to their original condition; and this was understood as a form of justice.

And it was redistribution of wealth.

This is NOT redistribution of wealth. Land merely just got passed around owners.

Land is wealth. It is redistribution of wealth. This isn't complicated.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Hentenza

I will fear no evil for You are with me
Site Supporter
Mar 27, 2007
35,796
4,480
On the bus to Heaven
✟102,888.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It's still redistribution.



Which is irrelevant.



Right, the land was returned--redistributed--to the original owners. The reason why land would have fallen out of the family in the first place was very likely because the family fell on hard times and had to sell their land. In the same way that people sold themselves into slavery to pay off debts. The Jubilee was restoring all the pieces of the chess board to their original condition; and this was understood as a form of justice.

And it was redistribution of wealth.



Land is wealth. It is redistribution of wealth. This isn't complicated.

-CryptoLutheran
Restoration of land is not redistribution. It is not being redistributed among different families but going back to the original family. This is not that hard to understand.

redistribution
noun [ U ]

US

/ˌriː.dɪs.trəˈbjuː.ʃən/ UK

/ˌriː.dɪs.trɪˈbjuː.ʃən/

Add to word list
the act of sharing something out differently from before, especially in a fairerway:
He talked about economic justice and a redistribution of wealth.
a redistribution of land to the people who need it




restoration
noun [ C or U ]

US

/ˌres.təˈreɪ.ʃən/ UK

/ˌres.tərˈeɪ.ʃən/

Add to word list
the act or process of returning something to its earlier good condition or position, or to its owner:
The first task following the disaster was the restoration of clean water supplies.
Restoration work on the Sistine Chapel ceiling is now complete.
A large majority of the population is demanding the restoration of the formergovernment.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
42,239
22,810
US
✟1,741,697.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It was a re-distribution of the land. Note the hyphen.

God originally distributed the land among the Israelites.

In the jubilee year, it was distributed again.

Re-distributed.

Which is different from redistributed.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,485
7,599
North Carolina
✟349,063.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You applied your own interpretive spin.
Or the spin of its usage in
Justice = dike, what is right; execution of a sentence, punishment, vegeance (2 Th 1:9, Jude 7, Ac 28:4)

Righteousness = dikaioslune, diakaioma, character or quality of being right or just (Ro 3:25, 26, Mt 5:6, Mt 3:15, 6:1, 33)
Let's take the word δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosune), looking at a broad range of lexicons "justice" is given as a definition of the word:


There's a reason we use the word "justification" also then speak of "imputed righteousness";
"Justification" is a declaration of acquittal, pronouncement of "not guilty," thereby establishing a person as just.
Justification is not "imputation" of righteousness. . .imputation follows justification.

Regeneration--->faith--->salvation--->justification (declaration of "not guilty)--->imputed righteousness.
because it is equally as valid to speak of "imputed justice"; to speak of how one is made right or just, before God; or speaking more properly in the context of Reformation theology--how one is declared right or just before God. Justification is God declaring a person righteous/just because of the imputed or reckoned justice/righteousness of Jesus; that I am not the one who has righteousness or justice of my own by which I am righteous and just before God--but Jesus is. And as an act of pure grace, appropriated to me through faith, God reckons--imputes--Christ's justice and righteousness to me.

To be righteous is to be just; to have righteousness is to have justice, to do righteousness is to do justice; and these are all synonymous with being right, to do what is right--that which is good and right. And biblically speaking, it is specifically in the context of God's revealed Law: God declares through the Law what is good and right--what is just or righteous; and thus the moral imperative is to do that which is good and right (just or righteous). God declares murder to be wrong, "Do not murder"; therefore the right thing to do is to not murder; if I murder I transgress the Divine Law that says "Do not murder".

There is this righteousness or justice; that is to be in a state of "rightness" before God which exists solely through the merciful declaration that I am forgiven and fully pardoned, and that I have imputed to me the justice of Christ by which I am just before God as a pure act of mercy. But there is also that justice, that righteousness, which I am commanded to exhibit to my neighbor, to exhibit here in the world toward others, in my community, in my family, to all God's creatures, to the whole of creation itself. And that is righteousness Coram Mundus, righteousness before the world, also called righteousness Coram Hominibus, righteousness before human beings.

The whole of justice toward others is wrapped up in this: That I am to act justly, rightly, in regard to and toward others. That I am called, as the Prophet Micah says, to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God.

It is a just act that I feed the hungry, to deprive my neighbor of food is unjust. And it is never a hyper-individualistic personal justice; because I am not a moral island and the Bible doesn't pretend that people are moral islands--we have moral obligations by the simple fact that we exist in communities, in societies--that we exist as neighbors in neighborhoods: in families, friend-groups, villages, towns, cities, and states. I exist in relation with all other people with whom I share the earth, from the miniscule to the majuscule; from those with whom I share the same house, the same village, the same rivers, the same wells, the same trees, the same mountains all the way to the same planet. I exist within a complex interconnected web of humanity--and I have an obligation, from God, to be a good neighbor.

Social justice is a moral obligation that rests upon the individual Christian AND the whole Christian Church in her total catholic capacity as the worldwide community of disciples of Jesus; to exist in relation to the rest of the world bearing the commandments of God. And that means I cannot say that feeding the hungry is someone else's responsibility and wash my hands of it, neither can I say that it is only the responsibility of individuals and not the responsibility of communities at large--it is both. If I see a hungry man, I am to give him bread; and I am to also support social conditions which enable the hungry to have bread. It's not either-or; it's both-and. That is Divine Justice, as revealed in Scripture. And to which I am called to exhibit. Not because I will attain justice before God through my works; but because if I claim that I am a disciple of Jesus then that means exhibiting my faith through my works. There is no scenario where I can claim I am a Christian and then live lawlessly and in unrepentant sin without remorse: And to deny my neighbor of material good when I have the opportunity to do so, is transgression of the Divine Law.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,485
7,599
North Carolina
✟349,063.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What I've been referring to is the commandment to ancient Israel. Which absolutely did involve setting aside resources, which were then redistributed by the government.
Keeping in mind that Israel was the church, not the world.
The person I've been responding to has been arguing that the transferal of wealth is theft; when Scripture specifically commands the transferal of wealth by the means of the state, the ancient state of Israel which was God's Covenant nation.

I'm not arguing that this Scripture applies to anything/anyone today--what I'm arguing is that if wealth distribution is inherently theft, then God is by definition a thief and violating His own commandment that says "Do not steal".

The point I'm making is that "wealth redistribution is theft" is an invalid argument, at least from a Christian, biblical perspective.

But it is the kind of argument that could be made if one is less interested in historic Christian and biblical morality and ethics and instead wants to use religion to justify modern economic, political, and social injustice. If one is perfectly okay with abusing religion and perverting to conform to their own political interests, then fine; but if one is interested in being faithful to the history, tradition, and holding to the divine revelation which has been received from the beginning--then it's a very unacceptable thing to do.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Hentenza

I will fear no evil for You are with me
Site Supporter
Mar 27, 2007
35,796
4,480
On the bus to Heaven
✟102,888.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It was a re-distribution of the land. Note the hyphen.

God originally distributed the land among the Israelites.

In the jubilee year, it was distributed again.

Re-distributed.

Which is different from redistributed.
It was restored back to the original owner. There is no distribution or re-distribution. Re-distribution is not in the dictionary.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0